tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 14 21:20:05 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: nuqjatlh
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: nuqjatlh
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 97 05:10:27 UT
jatlh HurghwI':
> > A sentence doesn't have to refer to itself (or even be a sentence) in
order
> >to have a parodox:
> >
> >THE NEXT SENTENCE IS TRUE.
> >THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS FALSE.
>
> cha' mu'tlhegh tu'lu', HISlaH?
As far as we know, and most likely, you cannot use {HISlaH}, {HIja'}, or
{ghobe'} to create tag questions. For that, use {qar'a'}. {cha' mutlhegh
tu'lu', qar'a'?}
> cha'Hu' jabbI'IDwIj vIlabbogh DalaDta'chugh,
> <*vItna'> jIjatlh 'e' vIHechpu',
Never put {-pu'} or any other Type 7 Verb Suffix on the second verb of an
{'e'} sentence!
> 'e' DaSov. 'ej, "paradox" 'oH wa'
> mu'tlhegh neH'e'. *vItna' 'oHlaHbe' mu'tlheghvetlh'e' 'e' vIta' neH
"I merely accomplish that that sentence cannot be definite truth"? What do
you mean?
> [because it needs to refer to something which affirms it, in this case
> itself]. 'ej paq Dajqu' DalaD DaneHchugh, "G�del, Escher, Bach" Danej.
> "paradox"mey DatIvchugh, paqvetlh DaparHa'qu'.
bIvangchugh 'uQ DaSop. bIQubchugh 'uQ Damojqu'!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97202.5